Even long-time Mac users could be forgiven for not knowing anything about OS X Server, the business-oriented version of the operating system that has been developed alongside the better-known consumer version for as long as OS X has existed. For a long while, the software shipped only with the Xserve, Apple's enterprise-class server hardware. Standalone licenses for the unlimited client version of the software cost $1,000 all the way up until Snow Leopard, when the price dropped to a still-imposing $500.

All this changed in early 2011 when Apple discontinued the Xserve and replaced it with repurposed configurations of the Mac Mini and Mac Pro. The former sold (and continues to sell) at the $1,000 price so appealing to power users and small businesses, though the Mini lacks the Xserve's hardware monitoring features or expandability.

With Lion Server and now Mountain Lion Server, the software has followed the hardware in becoming cheaper and simpler, and in shifting its focus from large businesses to small ones. At $50, Lion Server cost only five percent of what Leopard Server did; at $20, Mountain Lion Server costs less than half of that. As the product has gotten cheaper and within reach of regular people, the tools used to administer it have become correspondingly less complex, both in terms of how difficult they are to use and in how powerful they are.

Because of OS X Server's newly lowered price, because so much has changed since Snow Leopard, and because Ars Technica's lengthy OS X reviews have never touched on Server before (with the exception of a piece we ran in January about using Lion Server in the home), we've got a lot of ground to cover. This article should serve as an introduction to the software's capabilities, an evaluation of how those services work compared to the competition, and a basic how-to guide for getting everything up and running. By the time you're done reading, you should have a decent working knowledge of what this software can do, how to configure it, and whether it's right for you.

Introduction and installation

Unlike Windows Server, which contains a huge number of under-the-hood changes that make it substantially different from the client versions of Windows, Mac OS X Server is and always has been more or less indistinguishable in operation from Mac OS X. The server OS is really just the client OS with the server bits tacked on, and all of the observations made in John Siracusa's characteristically thorough review of Mountain Lion also apply to the server product.

Installing Mountain Lion Server is done through the Mac App Store, just as Lion Server was. Downloading the OS X Server app (hereafter "Server.app") will turn any Mac running Mountain Lion into a server. Snow Leopard Server and previous versions of the software required you to run the software on some sort of desktop, like an iMac or a Mac Mini or an XServe, but Lion Server dropped that stipulation and Mac laptops can now be used as servers, too. Once you've purchased Server.app, you can make as many Macs into OS X Servers as you want. You can also use Server.app to remotely manage your OS X Server from an OS X client.

Configuring a hostname is the most complicated decision you'll have to make when turning your Mac into a server.

When you first run Server.app, its wizard will get your server up and running in a few uncomplicated steps. It first walks you through configuring your server for use on a local network or with a domain name you've registered, setting up the server's host name and IP address, and enabling Push Notifications. We'll talk more about how Push Notifications in OS X Server work a little later, but all you need to set them up is an Apple ID (Apple recommends you use a separate Apple ID for your organization, not a personal Apple ID used to purchase apps), which will get you a Push Notifications certificate that needs to be renewed yearly. Once those steps are complete, you're ready to configure your server.

Downloading and running Server.app prompts a few changes to the operating system itself: the Screen Sharing and Remote Login features are both enabled automatically to make remote administration easier, for example. A Lion server would also set itself never to go to sleep while plugged in, and it would also change the About This Mac dialog to tell you that you were in fact running OS X Server—but these changes aren't made in Mountain Lion.

Lion Server would change the About This Mac dialog to let you know you were running server software.

Mountain Lion Server makes no such changes.

The first issue is easy enough to correct if you need an always-on server. The second was only ever a superficial change, but it makes a point: "OS X Server" no longer exists as a separate product. There's only OS X, which runs something called Server.app. OS X Server lives on in Apple's branding, but such a distinction is no longer made in the operating system itself. Depending on how Apple chooses to proceed, this could be the beginning of an effort to separate Server from the normal OS X development cycle, making it a version-agnostic app instead, but that's something we probably won't know for sure until we start hearing about OS X 10.9.

Goodbye Server Admin Tools, hello again Server.app

The primary tools used to administer past OS X Server versions were called the Server Admin Tools. These tools—which included Server Admin, Workgroup Manager, and System Image Utility—were each separate applications that gave users fairly comprehensive control over their server's settings. Server Admin, in particular, was the bread-and-butter administration tool that exposed the settings for most of OS X Server's features. (For you Windows Server admins out there, Server Admin in OS X is roughly analogous to Server Manager in Windows.)

Server.app controls all of the available services in Mountain Lion Server, whether you like it or not.

Lion changed that with something called Server.app, which took some of OS X Server's services and greatly simplified their administration, to mixed effect. Server.app's role was to make the product more appealing to users and to novice server administrators, and it's no mistake that the services managed by Server.app in Lion were the ones of most use to home users and small offices: file-sharing, mail, calendar, chat, Time Machine, VPN, podcast, the Web and Wiki servers, and basic user, group, and device management. And talk about simplicity—many of these services were reduced to big On/Off switches and a couple of checkboxes. If you wanted to do anything more complicated, the GUI wasn't going to help you much.

To unlock all of Lion Server's features, however, you still needed the Server Admin Tools, which were and still are available as a separate download. Installing and running Server Admin granted access to some of the more advanced services (DHCP, DNS, NAT, the NetBoot service, the Software Update server, Open Directory, the firewall, and a few others) while exposing more advanced settings for the Mail service, while things like Workgroup Manager enabled more advanced user and computer management. Other services that had been present in Snow Leopard Server and older versions (Print, QuickTime Server, and others, most of which could safely be considered vestigial) didn't make the jump, and aren't present in either Server.app or Server Admin.

In Mountain Lion, though, the Server Admin Tools are dead with only a couple of exceptions. Server.app picks up most of the slack, adding DNS, FTP, NetBoot, Open Directory, Software Update, and Xsan to the list of things it could already do, but basic networking functions like DHCP and NAT are gone from the GUI, and are now handled through the command line and by Internet Sharing in the System Preferences, as is the server's software firewall. The Podcast service is gone entirely.

The move to bury things like DHCP makes sense: most home users and small offices are going to have a router that already takes care of DHCP and NAT for them, while medium-to-large businesses will likely have Windows or Linux-based implementations already in place. Mountain Lion's subtractions should be harmless for many users, but if you relied on OS X Server for any of this before, you'll either have to re-learn the GUI or look elsewhere to provide these services now.

Notes for upgraders

When upgrading a computer running Snow Leopard Server to Lion from the App Store, the installer was intelligent enough to download and install Server.app along with it, transferring settings from Server Admin to Server.app. The Server Admin Tools were still a separate download, but settings for services managed by Server Admin were still there.

The upgrade path from Lion Server to Mountain Lion Server is slightly less automated: Mountain Lion will keep Lion's version of Server.app (which won't run in Mountain Lion), and you'll need to download the current version from the App Store separately. Happily, most of your Lion Server's settings remain intact (with the notable exception of File Sharing share points), and the settings from the last of the old Server Admin services seem to come over into Server.app without any issues, but it's odd that upgrading requires a manual download of Server.app when Apple is clearly able to provide it automatically. Once you've installed the Mountain Lion version of Server.app, the Lion version can be trashed; if the Server Admin Tools were present on your Lion computer, they are uninstalled automatically during the upgrade.

One final recommendation for upgraders: I recommend patience even when upgrading OS X clients since the updates that fix the most severe bugs usually come out quickly, and this recommendation is doubly prudent for OS X Server. Check out the release notes from the server version of 10.7.4 and compare them to the client version—OS X Server's updates contain major and far-reaching fixes for services, and the unreliability and inconsistency that new OS X versions often exhibit at first is much, much harder to tolerate in a server room than on your desktop. If you're the type to install new OS X versions on your Macs as soon as they're out, you should wait until at least 10.8.2 before you even think about upgrading a server. The fact that Mountain Lion Server doesn't drastically change or upgrade many of Lion Server's services should make this wait easier.

This isn't really true. Ars ran a similar in-depth feature article on Lion Server back in January, written by OpenForum member Herko. Herko went into configuring services, managing users, deploying mobile device profiles, and lots of other good stuff.

Not to take away at all from Andrew's obviously very detailed work for this feature--and I can't wait to dig into it some more--but this is definitely not the first time Ars has opened up a recent version of OS X Server!

This isn't really true. Ars ran a similar in-depth feature article on Lion Server back in January, written by OpenForum member Herko. Herko went into configuring services, managing users, deploying mobile device profiles, and lots of other good stuff.

Not to take away at all from Andrew's obviously very detailed work for this feature--and I can't wait to dig into it some more--but this is definitely not the first time Ars has opened up a recent version of OS X Server!

That article is a good one, and I actually used it to double-check a couple of things, but I was primarily referencing John Siracusa's huge and detailed OS X reviews. Still, credit where credit is due - I'll add a link to that article as well.

That article is a good one, and I actually used it to double-check a couple of things, but I was primarily referencing John Siracusa's huge and detailed OS X reviews. Still, credit where credit is due - I'll add a link to that article as well.

Why the hell would any one want a full blown GUI on a server? A command line interface or a cut down GUI like the one in Windows 2008 is fine, and uses less system resources.

What is more inexplicable, is how Apple still releases OS X server, but they don't release server hardware. What is this supposed to run on anyways? On the official site, they show OS X server being run on a MacBook?! Who the hell in their right minds would run a server on a laptop?

It seems like OS X servers offer little advantage over Windows or Linux servers. I doubt home users who power users would bother with this

What is more inexplicable, is how Apple still releases OS X server, but they don't release server hardware. What is this supposed to run on anyways? On the official site, they show OS X server being run on a MacBook?! Who the hell in their right minds would run a server on a laptop?

Servers are defined by the software they run, not the hardware running it. I run a Mac Pro server at my workplace and it's everything we need it to be. It's still running Snow Leopard's server software, and when we upgrade in 2013 (waiting for Mac Pro refresh), I'm sure we'll be running Mountain Lion Server. Also, I have run a server from a laptop in the past, it was actually pretty slick -- I was always intregued by the idea of an internal battery keeping things up and running in case of power/ups failure.

What is more inexplicable, is how Apple still releases OS X server, but they don't release server hardware. What is this supposed to run on anyways? On the official site, they show OS X server being run on a MacBook?! Who the hell in their right minds would run a server on a laptop?

Servers are defined by the software they run, not the hardware running it. I run a Mac Pro server at my workplace and it's everything we need it to be. It's still running Snow Leopard's server software, and when we upgrade in 2013 (waiting for Mac Pro refresh), I'm sure we'll be running Mountain Lion Server. Also, I have run a server from a laptop in the past, it was actually pretty slick -- I was always intregued by the idea of an internal battery keeping things up and running in case of power/ups failure.

You've got to be kidding me - "Servers are defined by the software they run, not the hardware running it." There's a whole computer universe waiting for you outside the walled garden that is Apple.

The first thing I thought when I saw this article is, "Is Apple allowing non-Apple hardware to run OSX server? And if not, who the hell would be stupid enough to use a computer without things like redundant power supplies, ECC memory, lights out management, and a whole bunch of other HARDWARE SPECIFIC features for a server?!?!?" I now have my answer.

The only people I know of that are using even a Mac Pro for a server are people that had made expensive commitments to the Apple ecosystem and got the rug pulled out from under them when Apple dropped the Xserve. They are using Macs as servers only long enough to fulfill their most desperate of needs until they can replace them with REAL servers.

For home use maybe, if you're a die-hard Apple loyalist - in a business, especially for mission-critical use, NOT ON YOUR LIFE!

Deep down I know that not all Apple users are drooling fanbois, but with posts like this one (not to mention 10 page articles on server software that only runs on ONE type of computer that every model in the entire line lacks proper server hardware) one can certainly understand where the stereotype comes from.

You've got to be kidding me - "Servers are defined by the software they run, not the hardware running it." There's a whole computer universe waiting for you outside the walled garden that is Apple.

The first thing I thought when I saw this article is, "Is Apple allowing non-Apple hardware to run OSX server? And if not, who the hell would be stupid enough to use a computer without things like redundant power supplies, ECC memory, lights out management, and a whole bunch of other HARDWARE SPECIFIC features for a server?!?!?" I now have my answer.

The only people I know of that are using even a Mac Pro for a server are people that had made expensive commitments to the Apple ecosystem and got the rug pulled out from under them when Apple dropped the Xserve. They are using Macs as servers only long enough to fulfill their most desperate of needs until they can replace them with REAL servers.

For home use maybe, if you're a die-hard Apple loyalist - in a business, especially for mission-critical use, NOT ON YOUR LIFE!

Deep down I know that not all Apple users are drooling fanbois, but with posts like this one (not to mention 10 page articles on server software that only runs on ONE type of computer that every model in the entire line lacks proper server hardware) one can certainly understand where the stereotype comes from.

In all honesty dude, the only person here coming across like a raving, caps using, ranting, full of their own opinions lunatic, is you.

His post was perfectly civil and it sounds like he's happy with his set up.

He makes several good points though - OSX server not running on business-class hardware is a real limitation. Also, the lack of ability to P2V or simply run instances virtualized on modern, server-class hardware is a real problem for even medium businesses.

For home use maybe, if you're a die-hard Apple loyalist - in a business, especially for mission-critical use, NOT ON YOUR LIFE!

Deep down I know that not all Apple users are drooling fanbois, but with posts like this one (not to mention 10 page articles on server software that only runs on ONE type of computer that every model in the entire line lacks proper server hardware) one can certainly understand where the stereotype comes from.

And yet the thing that comes to mind when I read unnecessary comments such as this is, "what's it to you?"

Of course there are enterprise environments that this is not appropriate for. The sky is blue and water is wet, too.

The point seems to be that OSX Server is about a small office or workgroup that wants some level of central services, but does not want to invest in real server infrastructure. If you have a small office with 5-10 Macs, this probably makes some sense.

My bigger problem with it is that this makes no sense for an organization of that size when there are credible cloud services that fit very well in that same space. This is a "server" product only because it offers services that the desktop software does not. Why they don't just bundle into the "desktop" OSX is beyond me, besides pretending they still care about their server users.

What is more inexplicable, is how Apple still releases OS X server, but they don't release server hardware. What is this supposed to run on anyways? On the official site, they show OS X server being run on a MacBook?! Who the hell in their right minds would run a server on a laptop?

Servers are defined by the software they run, not the hardware running it. I run a Mac Pro server at my workplace and it's everything we need it to be. It's still running Snow Leopard's server software, and when we upgrade in 2013 (waiting for Mac Pro refresh), I'm sure we'll be running Mountain Lion Server. Also, I have run a server from a laptop in the past, it was actually pretty slick -- I was always intregued by the idea of an internal battery keeping things up and running in case of power/ups failure.

I agree conceptually with running a small office server on a properly spec'd laptop. It's actually not a bad idea for certain use cases and available resources, given that once one at least replaces the PSU with a conventional PC model which would be running massively under rated. Even Apple laptop PSUs have a horrific failure rate by running hours (but pretty close to industry standards). The other caveat would be an SSD in the laptop for the OS(es) with an eSATA port running to a RAID box.

On the other homebrew hand though, unless the laptop is truly a spare, it's easier to get a cheap APC UPS and wire a car battery in parallel with the internal one. It's actually quite trivial to accomplish and will net you about 1-5 hours depending on server utilization (sure a laptop would get something like 20-30 hours, but you have bigger issues at that point). Before anyone goes nuts about safety, a battery box is $20 and Optima deep cycle gel cells are only $50 more than regular batteries.

I wouldn't run an OSX Server though. Even Windows Home Server is a vastly better and more flexible route. Heck, even a wide variety of *Nixes and BSD's are vastly better and offer web UIs for remote management. Some better NAS boxes from QNAP and Synology have enough server add-ons and administration to cover virtually every use case for an OSX based server at better performance profiles.

The point seems to be that OSX Server is about a small office or workgroup that wants some level of central services, but does not want to invest in real server infrastructure. If you have a small office with 5-10 Macs, this probably makes some sense.

My bigger problem with it is that this makes no sense for an organization of that size when there are credible cloud services that fit very well in that same space. This is a "server" product only because it offers services that the desktop software does not. Why they don't just bundle into the "desktop" OSX is beyond me, besides pretending they still care about their server users.

Cloud services come with their own problems, such as trusting confidential data with a third party in a foreign jurisdiction. This whole Megaupload snafu has demonstrated that US authorities can and will snoop upon or seize cloud data if suits some political agenda, with no regard for collateral damage.

I'm not saying the cloud isn't a useful solution, I just believe it may not be the best solution for all small business groups.

Interesting - this review was written using the GM build but before 10.8 was commercially available, and this tool was never available from the Apple Developer site. I'll add a quick section after the Profile Manager overview about using Workgroup Manager.

Why they don't just bundle into the "desktop" OSX is beyond me, besides pretending they still care about their server users.

A question rendered moot by the fact that both operating systems are the same price. Choose whichever you want.

Remember: the Server part of OS X is available as a $19.99 download in addition to the $19.99 that Mountain Lion already costs. Together, the price is $39.98, which is still less than Lion Server cost by itself.

Interesting - this review was written using the GM build but before 10.8 was commercially available, and this tool was never available from the Apple Developer site. I'll add a quick section after the Profile Manager overview about using Workgroup Manager.

I found the same thing when using the developer GM build. My job involves supporting a number of clients running OS X Server, therefore I wanted to have a good understanding of the changes in 10.8 and so be able to accurately advise those clients on what an upgrade to 10.8 would mean and whether its something they should pursue at this time.

Not having the (more) advanced Server Admin tools available for download during the seed builds was a little disconcerting to me, however in most cases it appeared through delving into the command line serveradmin tool that the same functionality was there, just not exposed through the GUI interface. I have been preparing myself mentally to switch to performing a number of configuration tasks via the command line where I have been used to being able to do them for a long time using the GUI toolset.

I was very happy to notice the Workgroup Manager application available for download on Apple's download page today while looking for something else, particularly because managing large custom MCX plists through Profile Manager is a pain at the best of times and usually slows the web application to a total crawl. The other advantage with the traditional MCX management path as opposed to via configuration profiles is that as far as I've been able to determine the three different scopes of preference application (Once, Often, and Always) do not exist when using configuration profiles. (I would be very happy to be corrected however (please someone tell me it's possible?))

Very good article but I would change two things.1. name your server vespasian.private2. Cert for VPN

Now use an Airport Extreme router and when you setup your server tell it to take control of the Airport Extreme. Make sure you have Open Directory and DNS working and you now have a fully functioning VPN server by turning it on in Server.app.You can now connect from anywhere by using Go menu and Connect to server. use your internal IP for server name and Airport Extreme for address in VPN setup.

Not only has OS X Server ALWAYS been available as standalone software, but it's been sold with the Mac Pro/Power Mac as a "server config" since LONG before the Xserve was a gleam in anyone's eye. (The dedicated "Mac Mini Server" was even around for a year and a half before the Xserve was discontinued.)

Not only has Ars Technica done a review of OS X Server before - it did so before there *WAS* a "Desktop" OS X. Before there was "Aqua". http://archive.arstechnica.com/reviews/ ... rst-1.html "Mac OS X Server 1.x" was released for the first time in 1999, and was sold on repurposed Power Mac G3 systems branded as "Power Mac G3 Server" (And later G4, etc.)

Mac OS X was available as a server OS for YEARS before it was available as a desktop OS. The fancy Aqua-GUIfied version (10.0) was released simultaneously with the desktop version, and has been released simultaneously with each newer version.

But, no offense, Andrew, you were in middle school/junior high when that prior Ars Technica article was published, so I don't really expect you to have remembered it.

Of course there are enterprise environments that this is not appropriate for.

Yes, but are there business (let alone enterprise) environments that it *is* appropriate for?

Sure.

My dad works for a small business, less than 50 employees total, but only 5 or 6 computers. They have a small-medium sized business accounting package with one of the computers acting as a "server" that all other computers access for billing/other accounting purposes, but they have no proper server. They simply back-up the appropriate data daily (to USB sticks and a online backup source) and monthly backups to DVD. Hell, he only backs stuff up regularly because I pounded it in to him and found him a source that is easy (specifically the automated online backup thing.)

Now it may not be an ideal solution, and its missing a couple things that could be handy but they don't really need much more than what they have. A cheap server with capabilities like this one would be useful though, all they would really need is a central place to back up stuff, file sharing and user accounts.

Most small businesses are something like this, or even worse (no backups!) and the ease of use that a proper, if limited server would bring is more than appropriate.

A business with a handful of client computers doesn't need a rack full of server/network equipment. Its not always a question of robustness/reliability but one of cost/benefit. Why the hell do you need a server with redundant power supplies, expensive high end raid storage systems and a on staff admin when they deal with like 5gb of data?

I think that if you go one step above "Power users" to developers, i.e. people that actually know what's going in computers and can build things, you're going to find a higher percentage of Macs and OS X than you will in the general population. At least that's the general experience in Silicon Valley, perhaps less so in areas without as strong a tech backbone.

I am quite disappointed by this article. The author seems to often just downplay some of the OS X Server features just because he does not understand them or maybe use them.

"The Xsan Admin is a bit of a niche service in an operating system packed with niche services"

Well Mail, Contacts, Calendar, File Sharing services, Open Directory, Wiki service, NetInstall, are all important services for any business small or medium. Why call them niche services? The author just mentions quickly Calendar or Mail service but they are very powerful services. Like any other services in OS X Server, they can be managed simply with Server.app but all advanced configurations are available via the command line and config files, as you do with Linux. So failing to mention that and call those services niche services put serious doubts on the real fairness of the author. In fact OS X Server is powerful enough for already significantly large businesses.

Plus similarly, calling Xsan a niche service is highly questionable. Xsan is not only very powerful but it is an important service for people accessing shared storage like video productions studios or any clustered environment where accessing shared data with reliable performance is important. Not understanding or being able yourself to use it does not give you the right to call it a niche service.

"Mail, Calendar, Contacts, and Messages are usable, but even when they were more full-featured they couldn't quite compete with Exchange."

Again, they still remained full featured, you just missed the thing. You can still access the full configuration if you need to do so in a more demanding environment, And the comparison with Exchange is quite meaningless since the two platforms are not playing in the same market even though Apple uses Calendar server internally across the organization.

"individuals and small businesses will be better served by Google Apps or Office 365"

Individuals don't need the level of power of Mail, Calendar, Contacts services implemented by OS X server, you are not making sense. And I disagree, small or medium business will be better served by OS X Server than what Google Apps or Office 365 provides (I mean you are not serious right? for environments dominated by Macs.

" DNS is the only one left standing in Mountain Lion—DHCP and NAT both went out the window with the Server Admin Tools."

Not entirely correct, DHCP settings can be customized by creating or editing the /etc/bootpd.plist file (man bootpd). For NAT, the service was provided by the natpmpd binary in Lion Server and the natd binary in Mac OS X Server v10.6. In Mountain Lion, natd is deprecated and natpmpd is used. Custom NAT configurations can be configured using the pfctl command

"Things like the software firewall are now managed through System Preferences, as they would be on any client Mac."

Not entirely correct, the ipfw command is deprecated in Mountain Lion. If you want to manually configure Firewall rules, you can use the pfctl binary for forward compatibility.

"As ZDNet's David Chernicoff observed in an Xserve post-mortem, Apple didn't even use Xserves or OS X Server in its own datacenters."

Not completely correct, Apple still uses its own hardware for some of its services like the WebObject based services. And anyway, Apple doesn't use Xserves in the new data centers, and what? Apple killed the Xserve anyway so it's not surprising. I find this comment quite pointless.

"It's no longer a serious alternative to Windows or Linux servers—....."

I think that if you go one step above "Power users" to developers, i.e. people that actually know what's going in computers and can build things, you're going to find a higher percentage of Macs and OS X than you will in the general population. At least that's the general experience in Silicon Valley, perhaps less so in areas without as strong a tech backbone.

This has been my impression too. I see a LOT of "power users" running around with Macs these days, I suppose the difference is in what you mean by "power users". Some people mean the crowd that play BF3 and consider that the pinnacle of computing. I mean people like Linus, or the guy who held a BGP course I attended a while back. The latter is also on several IETF group boards so I'm going to bet he's probably far more of a power user than people like PenGun.

Also while OSX Server certainly isn't appropriate for my line of work I can think of several businesses where it would be a good fit simply because if it's not easy they won't have anything resembling a server. These places don't need 99% uptime, much less five nines. A couple of hours of down time even so often as every few months is perfectly acceptable as long as they have a backup.

Of course there are enterprise environments that this is not appropriate for.

Yes, but are there business (let alone enterprise) environments that it *is* appropriate for?

Well, Apple seems to be aiming their server at small Mac-using businesses, workgroups, schools, hobbyists and the like. They are clearly not aiming it at the enterprise, and even in business-settings, their intented uses for the thing seem modest.

I run OS X Server on my personal home-server, because why not? It's a Mac mini that usually served iTunes-content around the house + some random other things (Handbrake-encoding etc.). I decided to install Server on it for basically shit and giggles. It was cheap and it was a good opportunity to find out what it's all about.

"Only one of these two services can be used at one time. If you turn on NetInstall, do not turn on Internet Sharing. If you turn on Internet Sharing, you cannot turn on NetInstall."

"If you previously enabled NAT and DHCP in Server Admin in Lion Server, your configuration will not be preserved when you upgrade or migrate to OS X Server (Mountain Lion)."

Basically, if you're using your server as an actual DNS server, you cannot also use it for NetInstall, and vice versa. I'll add a new link to the article to account for the presence of this sort-of DHCP implementation, but the fact remains that it lost a lot when they took away its GUI.

This seems a good update from Apple. While I lamented the loss of the XServe (which I just loved) it did make a lot of sense, especially with the Mac Pro running server-grade hardware anyway (though hot-pluggable drives and redundant power wouldn't go amiss).

Still, I think OS X Server hits the sweet spot that OS X servers are really needed for, and that is quite simply allowing easy management of Macs on a network; whether it's an all Mac network or an existing network that just has Macs within it, it's a really great way to manage everything.

While I realise I'm more of a hobbyist than a serious server administrator, I've been using to manage my four family Macs plus a couple of iOS devices, and it really is a brilliant way to do things, and with the new price-point it's actually within reach for those that want it.

Despite the simplicity of the interface (which I do think is a good thing), it does still require a degree of knowledge that doesn't put network administrators out of a job just yet, but it really is a good step in the right direction. I think the note in the article about OS X server become a separate product with a separate release cycle is right on the money, especially with more frequent OS X updates since less server-related features are likely to change with each new version, and it makes no sense to constrain server improvements to OS updates anyway, better to just give them the time they need to be ready.

For people questioning the use of a GUI; the whole point is to make the server *easy* to use. While you still need to know what the features are, what could be simpler than just turning them on or off? Minimal configuration will suit almost everyone, as few services require anything more complex than that.

Andrew Cunningham / Andrew has a B.A. in Classics from Kenyon College and has over five years of experience in IT. His work has appeared on Charge Shot!!! and AnandTech, and he records a weekly book podcast called Overdue.